Book club: The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution

[Belsnickel]

I came across this book thanks to an episode of The Politics Guys where they interviewed the author.

Now, fair disclosure, Sitaraman is a bit of a progressive but he has some substantial bonafides. He also, accurately in my opinion, points out how the premise of the book is a bipartisan one. This is a theme that "populists on the right and progressives on the left" should all get behind. I've had the book for a couple of months, but after knocking off The Liberal Redneck Manifesto and What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia from my summer reading list, I started reading it before bed last night. I got about 10% through, so these are some preliminary thoughts more than anything. This book is also a bit more of my typical reading selection and is well researched (the endnotes are damn near 25% of the book).

So far, Sitaraman has discussed how for the period in history between Athens and the US, all constitutions that were in place, all democracies, were founded on the idea that economic inequality is a given and that class warfare will exist. Because of this, they created mechanisms in the government to account for the inequality. Think about the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the UK, and how the intention there was to insure that both the upper and lower classes would have a place in government. Sometimes it was a separation like that, sometimes it was entry requirements, it took on various forms. The main thing, though, was that the system was set up so that the classes were equally represented (in theory) to prevent violent uprisings. This came about in many of these places because an aristocracy or an oligarchy was already in place and this was an attempt to democratize the government from that.

Sitaraman contends that this was a question that the founders had to grapple with in this country when framing the Constitution. Adams actually was in favor of something similar to an "upper" and "lower" house, like in England. He was shot down, however, because the idea was that there was no aristocracy here, so why create one? The argument is that during this time, the US was pretty economically equal, at least among those that had political access. Because of this, they created a "middle-class" constitution that didn't need to take into account the inevitable class strife. Fast forward to present day, though, and you can see what Sitaraman's overall argument is going to be. The widening socioeconomic gaps in our society have already caused quite a few political scientists to contend we are no longer in a democratic society, but an oligarchy. Sitaraman is saying that this economic inequality puts our constitution at risk because it was not made to account for it.

I'll write more as I read more. Right now he is still talking about Greek historians and philosophers, primarily, and the Roman republic a little bit right now.

[Belsnickel]

Finished the first chapter during lunch and it was interesting reading about Machiavelli in his role as a populist and a promoter of republican governance. So often hearing about The Prince we have a distorted view of him.

Chapter two starts into the creation of our Constitution, so it will be fun. My marginalia in this book is prolific, already.

[*michaelsean*]

Dill should be in the house soon to discuss this with you.

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 04:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Dill should be in the house soon to discuss this with you.

I purposefully tried to discuss some of the ideas and themes to see if it intrigued anyone. I doubt many, if any, will read this book as well. But there are some interesting talking points.

For instance, there was apparently a book a couple of years ago that estimated Gini coefficients (look it up if you don't know what it is) for historical times. They found that the Gini coefficient in 1774 America was .441, .409 removing slaves from the equation. The coefficient runs from 0 to 1, with 0 being a completely egalitarian society with no income inequality and 1 at the opposite end. So the closer to one, the more unequal the society. Our Gini coefficient for the US in 2012 was .463.

We are experiencing higher economic inequality than what existed during the days of slavery!

[*michaelsean*]

(05-23-2018, 05:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

I purposefully tried to discuss some of the ideas and themes to see if it intrigued anyone. I doubt many, if any, will read this book as well. But there are some interesting talking points.

For instance, there was apparently a book a couple of years ago that estimated Gini coefficients (look it up if you don't know what it is) for historical times. They found that the Gini coefficient in 1774 America was .441, .409 removing slaves from the equation. The coefficient runs from 0 to 1, with 0 being a completely egalitarian society with no income inequality and 1 at the opposite end. So the closer to one, the more unequal the society. Our Gini coefficient for the US in 2012 was .463.

We are experiencing higher economic inequality than what existed during the days of slavery!

It's interesting, but I'm probably a better spectator.  I mean in my head we can talk about income inequality from the days of slavery, but virtually everybody has a hand held computer that would embarrass any computer found on an Apollo spacecraft.  I understand that's quality of life vs income inequality, but still...things can't be that bad.

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 05:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's interesting, but I'm probably a better spectator.  I mean in my head we can talk about income inequality from the days of slavery, but virtually everybody has a hand held computer that would embarrass any computer found on an Apollo spacecraft.  I understand that's quality of life vs income inequality, but still...things can't be that bad.

Well, when we dig into why the author is discussing this, we can see why it is bad. Societies throughout history have fallen because of economic instability and inequality. This is why governments have been formed taking that into account in their structure. Even by taking it into account, what Sitaraman refers to as class warfare constitutions, we have seen strife between the plebs and the patricians end governments.

Our constitution is what he refers to as a middle-class constitution, relying on the relative equality of our nation to keep the stability in place for our government to exist. If the economic equality does not exist as the founders anticipated it, then the constitution is on shaky grounds.

[Dill]

(05-23-2018, 09:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I came across this book thanks to an episode of The Politics Guys where they interviewed the author.

So far, Sitaraman has discussed how for the period in history between Athens and the US, all constitutions that were in place, all democracies, were founded on the idea that economic inequality is a given and that class warfare will exist. Because of this, they created mechanisms in the government to account for the inequality. Think about the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the UK, and how the intention there was to insure that both the upper and lower classes would have a place in government. Sometimes it was a separation like that, sometimes it was entry requirements, it took on various forms. The main thing, though, was that the system was set up so that the classes were equally represented (in theory) to prevent violent uprisings. This came about in many of these places because an aristocracy or an oligarchy was already in place and this was an attempt to democratize the government from that.

Sitaraman contends that this was a question that the founders had to grapple with in this country when framing the Constitution. Adams actually was in favor of something similar to an "upper" and "lower" house, like in England. He was shot down, however, because the idea was that there was no aristocracy here, so why create one? The argument is that during this time, the US was pretty economically equal, at least among those that had political access. Because of this, they created a "middle-class" constitution that didn't need to take into account the inevitable class strife. Fast forward to present day, though, and you can see what Sitaraman's overall argument is going to be. The widening socioeconomic gaps in our society have already caused quite a few political scientists to contend we are no longer in a democratic society, but an oligarchy. Sitaraman is saying that this economic inequality puts our constitution at risk because it was not made to account for it.

I'll write more as I read more. Right now he is still talking about Greek historians and philosophers, primarily, and the Roman republic a little bit right now.

LOL Dill reporting, Michael!     Athenian Constitution? Roman Republic? Income inequality? :hooked:  

An intriguing argument, Bels. I agree the founders created a "middle-class" constitution, but I don't think they wholly ignored class warfare. Madison is taking it into account in Federalist Nos 10 and 51, isn't he, when he recognizes that differences in regional origin and property inevitably create differences in interest, and posits a system of checks and balances to insure no "faction" can create a majority, or hold it for long, without creating a balancing force?

Anyway, this seems like a worthwhile book to read. I would love to see how Sitaraman negotiates the distance from Athens to Philadelphia, via Rome and Renaissance Italy.

What is he saying about the Roman Republic? Seems like a good example of how an underclass comes to have a voice in government (e.g. Tribunes have full veto over senate legislation)--and loses it given the income equality following the Spanish and Gaulish campaigns. Not to mention the unwieldiness of an administration which comes to cover the distance between Britannia and Mesopotamia.

A couple of digressive but not wholly irrelevant points:

1. "Virtue" was central to Plato's and Aristotle's preferred constitutions. And it played a role in the founders' conception of elected representatives who, when they ascended to federal office, were supposed to enlarge their interests from local  to the common (national) good.  Who even talks about virtue anymore? How many hs graduates have heard of this concept?  Does Sitaramen mention virtue as he negotiates the history of constitutions and inequality?

2. Does he mention Plato?  Following his political theory in the Republic, oligarchy leads to democracy which leads to tyranny.  We are in the latter transition now, if we go by Plato's description, as unmanageable, self-interested factions turn to a strong leader to keep order.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-23-2018, 09:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I came across this book thanks to an episode of The Politics Guys where they interviewed the author.

Now, fair disclosure, Sitaraman is a bit of a progressive but he has some substantial bonafides. He also, accurately in my opinion, points out how the premise of the book is a bipartisan one. This is a theme that "populists on the right and progressives on the left" should all get behind. I've had the book for a couple of months, but after knocking off The Liberal Redneck Manifesto and What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia from my summer reading list, I started reading it before bed last night. I got about 10% through, so these are some preliminary thoughts more than anything. This book is also a bit more of my typical reading selection and is well researched (the endnotes are damn near 25% of the book).

So far, Sitaraman has discussed how for the period in history between Athens and the US, all constitutions that were in place, all democracies, were founded on the idea that economic inequality is a given and that class warfare will exist. Because of this, they created mechanisms in the government to account for the inequality. Think about the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the UK, and how the intention there was to insure that both the upper and lower classes would have a place in government. Sometimes it was a separation like that, sometimes it was entry requirements, it took on various forms. The main thing, though, was that the system was set up so that the classes were equally represented (in theory) to prevent violent uprisings. This came about in many of these places because an aristocracy or an oligarchy was already in place and this was an attempt to democratize the government from that.

Sitaraman contends that this was a question that the founders had to grapple with in this country when framing the Constitution. Adams actually was in favor of something similar to an "upper" and "lower" house, like in England. He was shot down, however, because the idea was that there was no aristocracy here, so why create one? The argument is that during this time, the US was pretty economically equal, at least among those that had political access. Because of this, they created a "middle-class" constitution that didn't need to take into account the inevitable class strife. Fast forward to present day, though, and you can see what Sitaraman's overall argument is going to be. The widening socioeconomic gaps in our society have already caused quite a few political scientists to contend we are no longer in a democratic society, but an oligarchy. Sitaraman is saying that this economic inequality puts our constitution at risk because it was not made to account for it.

I'll write more as I read more. Right now he is still talking about Greek historians and philosophers, primarily, and the Roman republic a little bit right now.

(05-23-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Dill reporting, Michael!     Athenian Constitution? Roman Republic? Income inequality? :hooked:  

An intriguing argument, Bels. I agree the founders created a "middle-class" constitution, but I don't think they wholly ignored class warfare. Madison is taking it into account in Federalist Nos 10 and 51, isn't he, when he recognizes that differences in regional origin and property inevitably create differences in interest, and posits a system of checks and balances to insure no "faction" can create a majority, or hold it for long, without creating a balancing force?

Anyway, this seems like a worthwhile book to read. I would love to see how Sitaraman negotiates the distance from Athens to Philadelphia, via Rome and Renaissance Italy.

What is he saying about the Roman Republic? Seems like a good example of how an underclass comes to have a voice in government (e.g. Tribunes have full veto over senate legislation)--and loses it given the income equality following the Spanish and Gaulish campaigns. Not to mention the unwieldiness of an administration which comes to cover the distance between Britannia and Mesopotamia.

A couple of digressive but not wholly irrelevant points:

1. "Virtue" was central to Plato's and Aristotle's preferred constitutions. And it played a role in the founders' conception of elected representatives who, when they ascended to federal office, were supposed to enlarge their interests from local  to the common (national) good.  Who even talks about virtue anymore? How many hs graduates have heard of this concept?  Does Sitaramen mention virtue as he negotiates the history of constitutions and inequality?

2. Does he mention Plato?  Following his political theory in the Republic, oligarchy leads to democracy which leads to tyranny.  We are in the latter transition now, if we go by Plato's description, as unmanageable, self-interested factions turn to a strong leader to keep order.

Fascinating stuff, and excellent posts by both of you.  I regret that I have little to offer to the conversation, other than I might actually have to break down and read this book some time.

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: An intriguing argument, Bels. I agree the founders created a "middle-class" constitution, but I don't think they wholly ignored class warfare. Madison is taking it into account in Federalist Nos 10 and 51, isn't he, when he recognizes that differences in regional origin and property inevitably create differences in interest, and posits a system of checks and balances to insure no "faction" can create a majority, or hold it for long, without creating a balancing force?

Neither I, nor Sitaraman, would say they ignored class warfare. Indeed, Madison makes mention of it there, and actually advocates for wealth redistribution with a few of his contemporaries. I guess the better way to put it is that the intention with their constitution was to rely on the lack of inequality rather than steering into it for the mechanics of the government.

(05-23-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Anyway, this seems like a worthwhile book to read. I would love to see how Sitaraman negotiates the distance from Athens to Philadelphia, via Rome and Renaissance Italy.

Aristotle > Polybius > Machiavelli > Harrington > Founders

There were some others thrown in there, as well, but those were the names thrown around more than any others in the first section.

(05-23-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: What is he saying about the Roman Republic? Seems like a good example of how an underclass comes to have a voice in government (e.g. Tribunes have full veto over senate legislation)--and loses it given the income equality following the Spanish and Gaulish campaigns. Not to mention the unwieldiness of an administration which comes to cover the distance between Britannia and Mesopotamia.

He brings up a lot of Polybius' writings on it, as well as Machiavelli's take on the history of the Roman Republic. Discussion over the fall of the Tribunate and its link to the agrarian laws, etc. It is used to solidify the ties of political power to property/wealth.

(05-23-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: A couple of digressive but not wholly irrelevant points:

1. "Virtue" was central to Plato's and Aristotle's preferred constitutions. And it played a role in the founders' conception of elected representatives who, when they ascended to federal office, were supposed to enlarge their interests from local  to the common (national) good.  Who even talks about virtue anymore? How many hs graduates have heard of this concept?  Does Sitaramen mention virtue as he negotiates the history of constitutions and inequality?

2. Does he mention Plato?  Following his political theory in the Republic, oligarchy leads to democracy which leads to tyranny.  We are in the latter transition now, if we go by Plato's description, as unmanageable, self-interested factions turn to a strong leader to keep order.

1. Virtue hasn't come into play at this point in the book. I can see that it would have a place in the discussion, but my guess would be further into it. The first section is much more about the history and the virtue discussion would likely be in the the section on "why is this an issue?"

2. There is a brief mention of Plato, but he isn't focused on much. I would agree with you that we are in a transition, but not the one you think. We're in an oligarchy right now, and we are on the precipice to move to tyranny or democracy.

[fredtoast]

This book got any pretty pictures?

[fredtoast]

Not counting the slaves made it much easier for the founding fathers to see a "lack of inequality".

We have to assume that without slavery there would have been a much larger population of extremely poor people. And governments have to give even the poorest something or else they will revolt to "get their share".

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 07:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not counting the slaves made it much easier for the founding fathers to see a "lack of inequality".

We have to assume that without slavery there would have been a much larger population of extremely poor people.  And governments have to give even the poorest something or else they will revolt to "get their share".

Well, today we are experiencing greater economic disparity than they did in 1774, taking into account the slaves. But you are definitely correct in that they were taking into account in the estimation at the time only those actually engaged in the political arena. So slaves and women would not be included.

[Dill]

(05-23-2018, 06:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 2. There is a brief mention of Plato, but he isn't focused on much. I would agree with you that we are in a transition, but not the one you think. We're in an oligarchy right now, and we are on the precipice to move to tyranny or democracy.

Time limits me, for the moment, to a comment only on the above.

I am not a Platonist. I was just mentioning his theory to diversify the theoretical models discussed. Plato's model is pretty linear and deterministic, an "ideal" model, but fascinating for the analogy he creates between the form of a given constitution and the individual psychology fostered in its citizens. His description of oligarchy and democracy, and how these governmental forms eliminate virtue, still has a ring of truth.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(05-23-2018, 07:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not counting the slaves made it much easier for the founding fathers to see a "lack of inequality".

We have to assume that without slavery there would have been a much larger population of extremely poor people.  And governments have to give even the poorest something or else they will revolt to "get their share".

"Fourty Acres and a Mule" keeps the lower class happy...or I should say the promise keeps them happy.

Just like now.